| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Parallax Error
   |
Posted - 2005.04.04 23:29:00 -
[1]
..... Is probably the way no-one wants. It'll be a shame and I'd rather not see it myself, but I really think that if we want missiles to be balanced properly with turrets then they are going to have to be treated much the same as turrets when it comes to coding.
I'm pretty sure in saying that the devs have already exhausted the avenue of missile agility and the result is the engine just isn't capable of the effects wanted (or is but would have to treat each missile as a ship).
What I would suggest is a system where, much like turrets, the missile hit is calculated and applied more or less as soon as the missile is fired. Not pretty, not eloquent but it should be a damn sight easier to balance.
My basic idea would be this: each missile has a certain min and max range based on skills. The chance of hitting or strength of hit would be based on: targets agility, targets speed, the missiles speed, and missile agility (note the missile speed and agility would only be used to calculate hits, nothign else).
The aim would be to provide some kind of mechanic where smaller missiles can be made useful against small targets, larger warheads don't hit small fast ships anythign like as hard as they do now, and long range missiles are able to engage and be competative with long range turrets.
Discuss 
|
Hyey
|
Posted - 2005.04.04 23:33:00 -
[2]
Ok you can do that, the thing is many raven pilots will still nos and web the frig to death(I do this, works wonders...) and I still get whined at for being cheap. Honestly in the end they can kiss it but seriously itll just have raven pilots using webs/nos or both and still get the massive whineage we have now.
~~
Hyey
I just payed 15 dollars this month just to be able to respond on the forums... stupid cancellation error.
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.04.04 23:36:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Hyey
Ok you can do that, the thing is many raven pilots will still nos and web the frig to death(I do this, works wonders...) and I still get whined at for being cheap. Honestly in the end they can kiss it but seriously itll just have raven pilots using webs/nos or both and still get the massive whineage we have now.
If they are spamming lights on you then fair enough. The point would be to balance it so cruise/torps are no more effective to a webbed frigate than a Neutron Blaster Cannon or Tachyon Beam. (This is of course, in the only 1 BS and right up close way).
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.04 23:36:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Selim on 04/04/2005 23:42:21
Ugh another missile thread
But I agree. The only perfect solution is to make missiles just like turrets. It will make all the missile guys **** a brick, though.
Minimal cap usage (3 for large and 1 for med), great tracking (better than lasers), but worst damage... like worse than projectile damage, to make up for super tracking, low skills needed etc, sounds like a plan to me.
Then make cruise go really, really, really (...) fast, to a pretty high range. The range of current guns, plus a 'falloff' with reduced 'accuracy' and damage in that falloff, which we can say is just the missile losing fuel impact speed and thus losing damage. Add missile computers to increase range.
Now that thats out of the way, we will realize that missiles still have the FOFs, making them different... but as a drawback, defenders could be made alot better. This is also because tracking disruptors > defenders anyway, since you screw up a turret ship totally with a midslot, and a defender only screws up a torpedo if 3 of them hit, using a hislot.
So yeah, a change like this would make Jim Raynor go ape****, but its really the only way.
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.04.04 23:38:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Selim
Ugh another missile thread
But I agree. The only perfect solution is to make missiles just like turrets. It will make all the missile guys **** a brick, though.
Minimal cap usage (3 for large and 1 for med), great tracking (better than lasers), but worst damage... like worse than projectile damage, to make up for super tracking, low skills needed etc, sounds like a plan to me.
Damn you Selim.... you agreed with me.... right, can't have that so I completely reverse my viewpoint from the first thread 
|
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.04.04 23:50:00 -
[6]
This can't be done because what you are talking about... are guns, not missiles.
Missiles have a flight path and can be destroyed anywhere in their path with smartbombs or evaded with speed (in such a way that a NOS can halt your MWD and get you caught up).
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.04.04 23:52:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Sorja
This can't be done because what you are talking about... are guns, not missiles.
Missiles have a flight path and can be destroyed anywhere in their path with smartbombs or evaded with speed (in such a way that a NOS can halt your MWD and get you caught up).
I think you have entirely missed the thrust of my post. The point is to change the way missiles work from being entities with a 'physical' presence to being a graphic much in the same way a shot from a turret is. The reason being that the constraints of the engine do not allow missiles to act in a manner where they can be balanced.
|
Mikelangelo
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 02:01:00 -
[8]
The answer is simple.
Redoing missiles should be trivial, without any huge amount of coding effort.
Use the EXISTING code base for drones for crying outloud.
Drones have a velocity, mass, damage rating. A ship can actually LAUNCH drones. A ship can LAUNCH missiles.
Friggin fascinating similarity, isn't it?
Make missiles be ONE SHOT drones. Use the existing code base, so you don't have to *gasp* actually CODE stuff and actually do work.
|
Altai Saker
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 02:03:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Mikelangelo
The answer is simple.
Redoing missiles should be trivial, without any huge amount of coding effort.
Use the EXISTING code base for drones for crying outloud.
Drones have a velocity, mass, damage rating. A ship can actually LAUNCH drones. A ship can LAUNCH missiles.
Friggin fascinating similarity, isn't it?
Make missiles be ONE SHOT drones. Use the existing code base, so you don't have to *gasp* actually CODE stuff and actually do work.
The lag would be incredible...
|
Nekhad Jormuzzar
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 02:24:00 -
[10]
- Bump missile speeds significantly, especially cruise, rocket and small.
- Give missiles an optimal target radius variable.
- On impact, calculate actual damage depending on missile optimal target radius / victim radius and victim transversal speed.
|
ALTNAME
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 02:39:00 -
[11]
Soon frigate pilots will have everything they wanted
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 10:56:00 -
[12]
Originally by: ALTNAME
Soon frigate pilots will have everything they wanted
Oh great, who let you out of your troll cave? But then again I suppose you actually think the current system where Cruise missiles and Torpedos are more of a threat to frigates than anything else in the game is good?
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 11:07:00 -
[13]
6 railguns to raven,4 missile slots = missile ballance
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 11:09:00 -
[14]
Originally by: LUKEC
6 railguns to raven,4 missile slots = missile ballance
And cruise missiles will still be deadly to frigates and useless at long range. Not balance in my book.
|
Ante
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 12:06:00 -
[15]
I'm sorry that this may sound extremely n00b4h... but why can't you just give missiles an agility modifier?
If you made torpedos faster, cruise missiles quite a bit faster, and gave them an agility modifier based on the damage they do I don't see how that wouldn't balance them ... ?
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 12:15:00 -
[16]
agility to missiles = uber lag...
i guess there would be no problem, if ravens would have 2-4 siege/cruise launchers... problem is having 6 of em, spamming torps or cruises of fofs. Ccp give us FOF ammo :)
|
Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 12:21:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Marcus Aurelius on 05/04/2005 12:23:59
Originally by: Nekhad Jormuzzar
- Bump missile speeds significantly, especially cruise, rocket and small.
- Give missiles an optimal target radius variable.
- On impact, calculate actual damage depending on missile optimal target radius / victim radius and victim transversal speed.
This plus, alot less base torp damage, more cruise range, more damage for heavies and smalls.
|
Neon Genesis
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 12:34:00 -
[18]
Perhaps make Siege only able to launche Torps, and not cruise, so it is like fitting blasters or railguns.
It would take away the incredible versatility of missiles and maybe make cruise launchers useful, you sacrifice the dmg of ur siege with torps for the frigate pounding of cruise.
__
There, i just contributed nothing to your thread
|
Darkwolf
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 12:39:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Neon Genesis
Perhaps make Siege only able to launche Torps, and not cruise, so it is like fitting blasters or railguns.
Except that cruise launchers are total pants for damage. If you want to force people to only use cruise missiles in cruise launchers, they need to have matching RoF / capacity with siege launchers.
|
Nordmann
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 12:44:00 -
[20]
missels dont need a change
|
Arte
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 12:58:00 -
[21]
I don't understand programming much and hardly use missiles so please indulge me.
Always seemed that the ideal way to solve missiles was that say a cruise could go fast but if it missed then it would take a long time to turn, Lights would have hi agility and so would "track" better, that way larger missile systems would be less effective if the target was moving fast and dodging the missiles... still doing maximum damage if they hit. (Sit still in a frigate and you're pwn'd, move and you have a chance). Quote:
the result is the engine just isn't capable of the effects wanted (or is but would have to treat each missile as a ship).
i.e a raven spamming cruise would turn a small engagement into a fleet engagement in the eyes of the server?
There surely is a way around it? Is the only reason behind the problem with missile agility that it is generating too much lag to calculate? Did it use to be a problem and they axed it, or is it something that they can't get to work on internal testing so won't try it wholesale?
I thought that they way missiles used to follow a target till they caught up was a workable balance, was that a 'lag-generating' effect thus bringing about the change where they intercept. Surely intercepting requires cpu work on behalf of the servers as well as it has to predict the ships movement.
Appreciate any explanations. Thnx
|
Altariel Teleri
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 13:07:00 -
[22]
a long long time ago, you could manuver yourself to avoid getting hit by cruise missiles. i remember attacking a rifter in my kestrel, the rifter just moved fast to the right and the missile went past him.
Minmatar Freedom! |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 13:44:00 -
[23]
Missiles should not be like turrets. Most people don't need another turret on their ship but missiles like they are right now.
What people tend to forget is that the Raven is only one single ship. Every other battleship that uses missiles needs a clear distinction between missiles and guns because it uses both...
|
Darax Thulain
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 13:58:00 -
[24]
What I liked best in the past was when torps had blast radius(500m) and every missile could hit random objects in space. It was loads more fun and the sheer danger of shooting torps around Yulai X DED Assembly plant put anyone off the idea of trying to kill off an army of frigs at close range. Also, drones worked as a missile shield back then, that was fun too. This would not balance the missiles itself, but it would make people think twice before shooting cruise at random small ships.
Did I mention it was more fun?
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 14:31:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Darax Thulain
What I liked best in the past was when torps had blast radius(500m) and every missile could hit random objects in space. It was loads more fun and the sheer danger of shooting torps around Yulai X DED Assembly plant put anyone off the idea of trying to kill off an army of frigs at close range. Also, drones worked as a missile shield back then, that was fun too. This would not balance the missiles itself, but it would make people think twice before shooting cruise at random small ships.
Did I mention it was more fun?
No, it wasn't more fun. Unless you call not being able to use torps effectively in empire because everyone in a war would make/hire a newbcorp alt to orbit them within blast range and get all the torp-users taken out by concord.
Originally by: Arte
I thought that they way missiles used to follow a target till they caught up was a workable balance, was that a 'lag-generating' effect thus bringing about the change where they intercept. Surely intercepting requires cpu work on behalf of the servers as well as it has to predict the ships movement.
I believe the change to the "intercepting" behaviour was an unintended effect of a fix to make the missiles actually explode somewhere near their target - previously, even if the missile "hit" and did damage, the explosion of the missile would appear a fair way away from a fast-moving ship. Intercepting would need a few more calculations than following, but it would only be one multiplication, one division and one addition (division to estimate time to target from range and current speed, multiplication to multiply target speed with time to close, and addition to add this to the targets current position to get an estimated interception point...not 100% accurate, and a bit crude, but surprisingly effective if it updates often).
The difficulty in applying "proper" missile agility probably stems from them having given missiles a very cut-down physics engine tie-in. Missiles as they are now really don't need most of the complications that the full ship physics engine does. Hence why having several volleys of torps flying around generates significantly less lag than having an equivalent number of ships flying around. If you wanted full missile agility, you'd have to make the missiles equivalent to, at the very least drones, if not ships. I'm sure those who have been in any sort of significant battle can appreciate what effect that would have.
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 14:35:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Arte
I don't understand programming much and hardly use missiles so please indulge me.
Always seemed that the ideal way to solve missiles was that say a cruise could go fast but if it missed then it would take a long time to turn, Lights would have hi agility and so would "track" better, that way larger missile systems would be less effective if the target was moving fast and dodging the missiles... still doing maximum damage if they hit. (Sit still in a frigate and you're pwn'd, move and you have a chance). Quote:
the result is the engine just isn't capable of the effects wanted (or is but would have to treat each missile as a ship).
i.e a raven spamming cruise would turn a small engagement into a fleet engagement in the eyes of the server?
There surely is a way around it? Is the only reason behind the problem with missile agility that it is generating too much lag to calculate? Did it use to be a problem and they axed it, or is it something that they can't get to work on internal testing so won't try it wholesale?
I thought that they way missiles used to follow a target till they caught up was a workable balance, was that a 'lag-generating' effect thus bringing about the change where they intercept. Surely intercepting requires cpu work on behalf of the servers as well as it has to predict the ships movement.
Appreciate any explanations. Thnx
My understanding is this: When they tried to give missiles an agility, the missiles would just slow down to almost a stop if they needed to make a sharp turn. The missiles were capable of such quick acceleration and deceleration that it made little difference to the missiles capability to score a hit. I think the problem they have is that they can't stop missile slowing down, so they can't stop them making tight turns.
The other thing is, however, even if you did have missile agility, to make them a viable long range weapon they'd need to have insane speeds. I can remember on the test server when they tried cruise missiles with a speed of atleast 6km/sec. They come out so fast that they don't need to maneuver to hit frigates at close range, to get around this they tried an arming time (the missile didn't do any damage if it scored a hit in the first few seconds of its flight). Of course that made them utterly useless against *anything* within about 20km and the torps still killed you.
As it stands, there doesn't really seem to be a way to make missiles work well at long range but keeping them from being (the larger warheads this is) a more or less instant death tool against small ships.
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 14:36:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Noriath
Missiles should not be like turrets. Most people don't need another turret on their ship but missiles like they are right now.
What people tend to forget is that the Raven is only one single ship. Every other battleship that uses missiles needs a clear distinction between missiles and guns because it uses both...
No, missiles need to be balanced and competative. They are neither balanced against small ships, or competative at range.
|
Ante
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 14:53:00 -
[28]
I have to admit I don't really see much of a problem with missiles atm. With the suggestions that I made (I'm sure there would be some way of making it possible) the missiles would be effectively balanced. They would still be 1 hit k-o against frigs, but you have to expect that. If a torpedo designed to destroy battleships hits something smaller than it the target is going down something shocking.
I liken it to Mechwarrior. Missile mechs in that can do a lot of damage in one salvo (multiple launchers), but the missiles CAN be dodged by light mechs. If the missiles are given an agility based on damage then light missiles would have the agility to turn and hit frigs where as cruise and torps probably wouldn't (neither would heavies for that matter). Back in Mechwarrior if a salvo of missiles (think 4xLRM20) hit a light mech it was either so badly wounded so that it may as well be destroyed, or if you're lucky it would actually be destroyed instantly.
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 15:02:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ante
I have to admit I don't really see much of a problem with missiles atm. With the suggestions that I made (I'm sure there would be some way of making it possible) the missiles would be effectively balanced. They would still be 1 hit k-o against frigs, but you have to expect that. If a torpedo designed to destroy battleships hits something smaller than it the target is going down something shocking.
I liken it to Mechwarrior. Missile mechs in that can do a lot of damage in one salvo (multiple launchers), but the missiles CAN be dodged by light mechs. If the missiles are given an agility based on damage then light missiles would have the agility to turn and hit frigs where as cruise and torps probably wouldn't (neither would heavies for that matter). Back in Mechwarrior if a salvo of missiles (think 4xLRM20) hit a light mech it was either so badly wounded so that it may as well be destroyed, or if you're lucky it would actually be destroyed instantly.
See mine and Mathew's above posts, afaik they can't put in a workable missile agility because they can't stop missiles slowing down quickly and doing sharp turns. And it still doesn't solve the issue of missiles being a waste of time for mid to long range combat.
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.04.05 15:06:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Noriath on 05/04/2005 15:11:04
Originally by: Parallax Error
Originally by: Noriath
Missiles should not be like turrets. Most people don't need another turret on their ship but missiles like they are right now.
What people tend to forget is that the Raven is only one single ship. Every other battleship that uses missiles needs a clear distinction between missiles and guns because it uses both...
No, missiles need to be balanced and competative. They are neither balanced against small ships, or competative at range.
Yes, they have to be balanced against small targets, but I don't agree on the range.
Turrets don't work well if the enemy is too close, that's why with launchers on your gunship you can still deal some damage if the enemy has outmanuvered your turrets. As a drawback launchers don't work to well at extreme ranges.
That's exactly the way it has to work on ships that use turrets and launchers. Launchers for reliable over time damage, Turrets for first strike capability and burst damage...
Missile ships are simply one sided because they don't have turrets, and I don't think they should be able to perform equally effective as ships that combine both weapon systems...
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |